Welcome to Gaia! ::

I read this article twice, printed it out, and read it two more times with a dictionary in my lap! Here's what I got out of it:

Ludwig Boltzmann was a 19th-century physicist who attempted to answer the question of why time seems to go in only one direction. At the time, the leading theory in cosmology was that the universe had always existed. Boltzmann took this as a given. He also took as given the second law of thermodynamics, "which says that entropy, which is a measure of disorder or wasted energy, can never decrease in a closed system like the universe." Boltzmann said that time follows this tendency of particles to spread into the most random configuration, and to not move toward a more organized configuration. Thus, time flows in only one direction, just as particles flow only towards disorder.

In an infinite universe (one with no beginning), the disorder would increase to the point of maximum entropy and equilibrium. No life would be possible.

What Boltzmann suggested was that, "over an infinite time period random fluctuations would occasionally form temporary pockets of lower entropy", essentially starting a new time line and making it possible to form life.

However, by Boltzmann's calculations, the fluctuation necessary to create the universe we know today would be improbably large. He says it is much more probable for smaller fluctuations to occur producing only parts of a universe--such as a naked brain floating in space.

Today, however, astronomers have evidence that the universe has not always been here, that "it was born in the Big Bang, which somehow set the arrow of time, 14 billion years ago."

The problem is that the Boltzmann brain theory still makes logical sense. However, "one of the central orthodoxies of cosmology is that...we and our experiences are typical of cosmic beings." Boltzmann says that the odds of that being true are astronomical, and that it is more likely that all of our observations about our past are merely illusions or false memories.

I think that what Boltzmann was suggesting was that the earth itself may not exist: that we are not whole people but merely naked brains whose obversations of their universe are false, making all of our memories false.

As the article states, "it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us."

I think it is important to note that the article also says that no one actually believes that we are naked brains floating in space. The problem that cosmologists have is in dealing with the logic of Boltzmann's theory. It's true that nature tends to do what is easy. It is also true that making an organized universe with galaxies, solar systems, planets and people is not easy. It is more probable that we don't exist. Yet, we do exist.

It's quite intriguing really. Are we some sort of fluke? Are we the "freaky observers," and not, as cosmologists have always believed, the "ordered observers?" I suppose anything is possible in an infinity!

When we say the universe is ordered, we mean on a much smaller scale. All these atoms are orgranized into planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies, which follow orderly rules.

At maximum entropy, these atoms would be disorganized, and there wouldn't be any stars or star clusters to create what we see as chaos.

I read and re-read this and all I can say is..... I think my poor little naked brain is numb.... xd